Does everyone have access to the truth, and can everyone understand it equally well? What should we do when our closely held beliefs seem to contradict what reason tells us? In this age of fake news, biased reporting, and inflammatory rather than reasoned rhetoric, questions like this have become increasingly important. That is especially so for people of faith, who must wade through claims coming not only from social media, mainstream media, books, friends, etc., but also from religious scriptures and authorities. It can feel like we have to choose between living lives of logic and reason or lives of faith. These challenges can even lead to people claiming there is no truth, or many. This might feel like a new problem in our world, but it’s not! Many Medieval thinkers were also struggling with how faith and reason interact, and how they could navigate their ability to reason with their desire to live in accordance with religious tradition. They were concerned about the truth and where and how to find it. Here we will examine one influential thinker, Averroes, but first take a moment to think about what your initial view is.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126-1198 CE), was an Arab Muslim philosopher, physician, and judge from Cordova, Spain. He is well known for his extensive and influential commentaries on the works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle – Thomas Aquinas makes extensive use of his work, referring to him simply as The Commentator – and for his extensive efforts to argue for the use of philosophy in his Islamic context. During the Middle Ages the use and examination of the texts of the pagan philosophers was highly controversial, and many argued that one ought to only engage with religious works.
The work you will be reading selections from is called A Decisive Discourse on the Delineation of the Relation Between Religion and Philosophy (often called the Decisive Treatise for short). In it, Averroes makes several claims. First, he argues that it is acceptable to study the texts of the ancient pagan philosophers. He also thinks that the truth found in these philosophical works cannot contradict the truth to be found in Islam. According to Averroes, these can be explained by the fact that people have different intellectual capacities, and so not everyone can fully understand the truth as it is expressed most perfectly, by philosophical demonstration. Differences and seeming contradictions don’t indicate the existence of contradictory ‘truths’ or the non-existence of truth as such; rather, they can be explained by a difference in understanding. Averroes’ first and second claims, made here in the context of Islam, were taken up within the Christian context a short time later by Thomas Aquinas. If you are interested, the full text of the Decisive Treatise can be found here.
Law– The Quran (the central religious text of Islam) and, to a lesser extent, the Hadith (reports of what the prophet Muhammad said and did). Averroes is concerned with explaining how philosophy relates to what Muslims take to be the unerring truth regarding God and the nature of existence, as they are expressed in their scriptures.
Exhortation– The method of understanding and interpreting truth available to the common people. The majority of people take scripture literally and understand truth and right action based upon this understanding. They are persuaded by the vivid imagery of the Quran and the rhetorical prowess of religious leaders. Averroes takes this to be lowest form of understanding
Dogmatic Discourse– The method of understanding displayed by those who, through natural ability and habit, are able to have a deeper understanding of the Quran, and of the truths it illuminates. These people know that not all of the scriptures are to be taken literally, and that greater underlying truths are revealed by interpreting some elements allegorically. Still, they err on the side of dogmatism and literal interpretation whenever uncertainty arises. Averroes associates this way of thinking with Muslim theologians and views this to be the middle level of understanding.
Philosophical Inference– The type of understanding associated with philosophical demonstration or argument. This is the highest level of understanding, accomplished by a select few, who have a natural capacity for philosophy and proper philosophical training. They take large parts of the Quran to be open to allegorical interpretation and are able to arrive at a full understanding of the truth through reasoning and philosophical demonstration. They can know with certainty things which the other classes of people must simply believe, and their knowledge can even reach the truth about the nature of God. While it might seem that philosophical claims sometimes contradict the Quran, this is not so. It is simply the case that the philosopher’s understanding is that much more advanced than those who rely on dogmatic discourse or exhortation.
The first step Averroes must take in outlining the relationship between faith and reason is to convince people that God wants us to understand reality. Thus, it is not only acceptable but expected that all who can will engage in rational investigation of God and the world. By using reason to examine creation we can come to understand the Creator more fully.
Selection 1, p. 7
The purpose of the following treatise is to inquire through sacred Law whether the learning of philosophy and other sciences appertaining thereto is permitted, or called dangerous, or commended by the Law, and if commended, is it only approved or made obligatory.
We maintain that the business of philosophy is nothing other than to look into creation and to ponder over it in order to be guided to the Creator,—in other words, to look into the meaning of existence. For the knowledge of creation leads to the cogniscance of the Creator, through the knowledge of the created. The more perfect becomes the knowledge of creation, the more perfect becomes the knowledge of the Creator. The Law encourages and exhorts us to observe creation. Thus, it is clear that this is to be taken either as a religious injunction or as something approved by the Law. But the Law urges us to observe creation by means of reason and demands the knowledge thereof through reason. This is evident from different verses of the Quran.
[…] Thus we must look into creation with the reason. Moreover, it is obvious that the observation which the Law approves and encourages must be of the most perfect type, performed with the most perfect kind of reasoning.
In this passage, Averroes is using a combination of philosophical argument and appeal to scripture to make the case that the study of philosophy (i.e. “the most perfect kind of reasoning”) is not only allowed but required of those who would attain knowledge of God in the best way possible. He wants to show those who are skeptical of philosophical reasoning that it is not only acceptable to God, but encouraged by Him.
To do this, he makes a popular argument of the time—that a cause can be known through its effects. For example, we can understand something about the nature and personality of an architect by examining the buildings she designs. So, if God is the ‘architect’ of everything that exists, we can know something of Him by knowing about the world he created. We come to know the world through observing it and reasoning about it. We learn about the architect’s buildings by looking at them and then reasoning about what design style they fit into. If we want to know creation and the Creator most fully, we should use the best type of reasoning we have, which is philosophical reasoning.
Since God wants us to engage in rational investigation of creation in order to know Him more perfectly, we should make use of any resources we have for that task. That includes the work of those who have already undertaken rational investigation of the world, even if they do not share our religion. If it should happen that a person reads the works of the ancients and is led astray, this should be taken as the result of a lack of training, natural defect, or another issue with that individual, and should not be used as a reason to dispense with these texts altogether.
Selection 2, p. 8-9
Now, such is the case. All that is wanted in an enquiry into philosophical reasoning has already been perfectly examined by the Ancients. All that is required of us is that we should go back to their books and see what they have said in this connection […] This being so, it becomes us to go back to the Ancients, and to see what observations and considerations they have made into the universe, according to the tests of inference. We should consider what they have said in this connection and proved in their books, so that whatever may be true in them we may accept and, while thanking them, be glad to know it, and whatever be wrong, we should be warned by it, be cautioned, and hold them excused for their mistake […]
If, by studying these books, a man has been led astray and gone wrong on account of some natural defect, bad training of the mind, inordinate passion, or the want of a teacher who might explain to him the true significance of things, by all or some of these causes, we ought not on this account to prevent one fit to study these things from doing so. For such harm is not innate in man, but is only an accident of training.
It is not right that a drug which is medically useful by its nature should be discarded because it may prove harmful by accident. The Prophet told a man whose brother was suffering with diarrhea to treat him with honey. But this only increased the ailment. On his complaining, the Prophet said: “God was right and thy brother’s stomach was wrong.”
Here Averroes is making the argument that it is best to make use of the good reasoning and ideas of those who have come before us. He holds the view that the ancient philosophers, and especially the Greek philosopher Aristotle, had already worked through many important philosophical issues and provided clear demonstrative arguments for the truth of the conclusions they reached. So, we ought to make use of these texts, coming to understand these arguments and adopt the resulting conclusions. Can you think of times in your own life or studies when you have made use of the work of those who came before you? Has doing this helped you to understand the issue you were investigating more completely?
Of course, it is true that not everyone who reads Aristotle will come away with full understanding; some people who encounter these texts will come away with less understanding of God and the world rather than more. But we should see this as an indication that that particular individual was not well suited to the study of philosophy rather than a demonstration that philosophy should not be studied. He uses a medical example to make his point: if a treatment that is known to help with stomach issues is taken by a person and does not help him, we should assume this is an outlier case, not a reason to stop using the treatment altogether.
Truth is perfect and unerring, however one arrives at it. Whatever is true in religion cannot be contradicted by whatever is found to be true through the rational demonstration of the philosophers. Rather, the truths found in religion can only be strengthened and confirmed by philosophical reasoning and logic. When contradictions seem to occur, we must look at the “nature and temperament” of those involved. Different people are inclined towards different methods of belief and understanding, so not everyone is able to grasp the truth philosophically.
Selection 3, p. 10
So far, then, the position is established. Now, we Muslims firmly believe that our Law is divine and true. This very Law urges us and brings us to that blessing which is known as the knowledge of God, and His creation. This is a fact to which every Muslim will bear testimony by his very nature and temperament. We say this, because temperaments differ in believing: one will believe through philosoph[ical inference]; while another will believe through dogmatic discourse, just as firmly as the former, as no other method appeals to his nature. There are others who believe by exhortation alone, just as others believe through inferences. For this reason our divine Law invites people by all the three methods, which every man has to satisfy, except those who stubbornly refuse to believe, or those, according to whom these divine methods have not been established on account of the waywardness of their hearts […]
As this Law is true and leads to the consideration of the knowledge of God, we Muslims should believe that rational investigation is not contrary to Law, for truth cannot contradict truth, but verifies it and bears testimony to it. And if that is so, and rational observation is directed to the knowledge of any existent objects, then the Law may be found to be silent about it, or concerned with it. In the former case no dispute arises, as it would be equivalent to the absence of its mention in the Law as injunctory, and hence the jurist derives it from legal conjecture. But if the Law speaks of it, either it will agree with that which has been proved by inference, or else it will disagree with it. If it is in agreement it needs no comment, and if it is opposed to the Law, an interpretation is to be sought. Interpretation means to carry the meaning of a word from its original sense to a metaphorical one […]
Indeed, we would even say that no logical conclusion will be found to be opposed to the Law, which when sifted and investigated in its different parts will be found in accordance, or almost so, with it.
Averroes claim here that “truth cannot contradict truth, but verifies it and bears testimony to it” is of central importance not only to this particular text, but to the project of reconciling faith and reason which was taken up by many philosophers during this time period. Thomas Aquinas, inspired by Averroes, uses this exact same phrase in his Summa Contra Gentiles.
As we can see hinted at here (and explained in more detail below) Averroes’ approach to resolving apparent conflict is to note that people have differing abilities and rational temperaments. Most people are inclined to accept things as true when they are persuaded by exhortation, imagery, and rhetorical flourish; others are able to go beyond that to some limited rational examination of truth, but they get caught up in dogmatic claims; a select few are able to fully grasp the truth through philosophical reasoning, following the demonstrative ‘inferences’ or arguments to their conclusions and arriving at a full understanding. When there seems to be a contradiction between faith and reason, we must take into account who is claiming the contradiction, what the limits of their understanding are, and what method of investigation they are attempting to employ. Most importantly, we must not allow these seeming conflicts to persuade us that the truth does not exist at all, or that there can exist multiple contradictory ‘truths.’
Here, Averroes provides a useful example to illustrate his earlier point that people of different temperaments or rational abilities will understand the same truth in radically different ways. It is not wrong for the common people, who understand by exhortation, to think that God has a body or exists in a place, even though the philosophers know this sort of imagery to be highly allegorical and metaphorical. Thus, while it may seem that the common people, who believe the Law’s exhortation that God is ‘in heaven’, and the philosopher’s insistence that God has no place or body, may seem to making different claims, Averroes holds that they are understanding the same truth in radically different ways.
Selection 4, p. 15-18
For the Prophet said of a Negro slave girl who told him that God was in heaven: “Emancipate her, for she is a believer.’ For there are persons who cannot believe a thing except through their imagination, that is, it is difficult for them to believe a thing which they cannot imagine. Among these may be classed men who cannot understand a thing except with a reference to space, and hence believe in God as though physical, notwithstanding that these are the very persons who have dealt very harshly with those mentioned above. They ought to be told that things of this character are parabolical, and that we should pause and consider the saying of God: “Yet none knoweth the interpretation thereof except God”. Although learned men agree that these are to be interpreted, they differ in the interpretation according to their knowledge of principles of philosophy […]
Hence, it is necessary for the doctors of Islam to prevent men, except the learned, from reading his books; as it is incumbent upon them to hinder them from reading controversial writings which should not be studied except by those fit to do so. As a rule the reading of these books is less harmful than those of the former. For the majority cannot understand philosophical books, only those endowed with superior natures. People are on the whole destitute of learning and are aimless in their reading which they do without a teacher.
You ought to be aware that the real purpose of the Law is to impart the knowledge of truth and of right action. The knowledge of truth consists in the cogniscance of God and the whole universe with its inner significance, especially that of religion, and the knowledge of happiness or misery of the next world. Right action consists in following those actions which are useful for happiness and avoiding those which lead to misery. […]
In short, all that should be interpreted can be grasped by philosophy alone. So the duty of the learned person is to interpret, and of the common people to take it literally, both in conception and in verification. The reason for the latter is that they cannot understand more.
Because it would not be very easy for those who can only understand through exhortation to grasp the arguments of the philosophers, they should hide their books from all those with non-philosophical temperaments so they are not led into confusion and unbelief. This will allow all people, regardless of their rational capacity, to know enough about God, ethics, and the nature of the world, to live well and achieve some measure of happiness. Still, those who are able to understand the deeper truths about God through rough demonstrative reason should do so. All things, even the nature of God, are open to rational understanding for those “learned men, who are, through natural capacity and proper training, capable of philosophical/demonstrative reasoning.”
Averroes’ insistence that different people may understand the same truth so differently that it seems their views are contradictory may seem hard to believe—how can those who take the imagery of God as having a body in scripture and those who reason to the idea that God does not have a body be accepting the same truth? Perhaps a more mundane example can help to illustrate his point.
When you were a child learning basic earth science, you might have noticed a glass of water on the counter would ‘disappear’ over time. So, you thought that water simply vanished when left out, ceasing to exist. A few years later, you were introduced to the term evaporation, and your teacher provided a basic account of how evaporation happens, explaining that the water becomes a gas. So then you understood that the water didn’t cease to exist. Later, in high school or college, you were able to read more advanced accounts of chemical compounds, including the compound H2O and the process by which it changes states from liquid to gas. More importantly, you were able to run experiments so that you could reason to the truth of what the textbooks claimed, coming to understand water didn’t cease to exist, nor did it become something else. Rather, the same thing, H2O changed from a liquid state to a gaseous state. At first, it might appear that your child-self and your adult-self held two contradictory views—first that water vanishes when left out and later that H2O remains but changes from liquid water to water vapor—but that isn’t quite right; you simply had radically different understandings of the same truth about the nature of water/H2O.While your child self is wrong about the details, that is not important because the underlying truth about the changeable nature of H2O is what you were really noticing then, and what you come to understand more fully later..
Let’s return to Averroes example to see if we can now see how the seeming contradiction resolves in that instance. First, we have the girl who claims that God is “in heaven” and is praised as a believer. The key here is that she is assenting to God’s existence. She uses the exhortations and images from scripture and religious tradition to grasp God’s existence as a being. Someone more advanced, like a theologian who is capable of dogmatic discourse, will be able to assert God’s existence without thinking that He is in a particular location like heaven. She knows that God is not literally “in heaven” but that this is simply a way of saying, through imagery, that God exists. Still, she will not be willing to go too far beyond scripture and will often find it useful to think of God in physical ways, even if she knows that this is not quite true. Finally, one who is more advanced in their understanding, the philosopher who can engage in rational demonstration, will be able to leave imagery behind. She will assert not only that God exists, but that God is existence or being itself. She will know that when the scriptures talk about God as being ‘in heaven’ they do not mean that God has a body but rather that God simply is. While it might seem contradictory for the girl to say that God is “in heaven” and the philosopher to say that God has no body and so no location, what they are both actually noticing is the same underlying truth—God is—and expressing it in a way which they can each understand. This is similar to how child you and adult you were noticing the same truth about H2O—that it changes states—and expressing it in ways which conformed to your level of understanding at the time. Often people will argue that the girl and the philosopher are claiming two contradictory things about God, and so could not possibly share the same truth. But, that is because they think the claim being made is about God’s physical nature rather than His existence. Of course, the girl is wrong about God having a body, but that does not matter since that is not the underlying truth claim being made. It is a truth claim about God’s existence which she is being praised for and which she, the theologian, and the philosopher share.
Here, Averroes reiterates his classification of people into three groups based upon their ability to use reason to interpret scripture. He then makes the claim that those who can reason philosophically, to avoid leading the common people astray, should lie about the extent of their knowledge. This is because those who are not suited to philosophy can easily be led into unbelief, something which leads them to sin and damnation according to Islam.
Selection 5, p. 18-19
Thus there are three groups into which men have been divided: Those who are not included amongst those who should know the interpretations. These are common people who are guided by exhortation alone. They form a vast majority: for there is not a single rational being who cannot accept a result by this method. The second are dogmatic interpreters. These are so, either by their nature only, or both by nature and habit. The third are those who can be definitely called interpreters. These are the philosophers, both by nature and by philosophical training. This kind of interpretation should not be discussed with the dogmatists, not to speak of the common people. If any of these interpretations are disclosed to those not fit to receive them-especially philosophical interpretations-these being far higher than common knowledge, they may be led to infidelity. For he wishes to nullify the exoteric meaning and to prove his interpretation. But if the exoteric meaning is shown to be false without the interpretation being established, he falls into infidelity, if this concerns the principles of the Law. So, the interpretations should not be disclosed to the common people, and ought not to be put into exhortative or doctrinal books-that is, books written with an expository purpose in view […]
Hence, it is necessary that the common people should be told that those things which are exoteric, and yet cannot be understood easily, the interpretations of which it is impossible for them to understand, are parabolical, and that no one knows the interpretation thereof except God. We should stop at the following words of God “None knoweth the interpretation thereof except God”. This is also the answer to the question about some of those abstruse problems which the common people cannot understand: “They will ask thee concerning the spirit: answer: The spirit was created at the command of my Lord, but ye have no knowledge given to you, except a little.” Again, one who interpretes these to persons not fit to receive them is an infidel, because he leads others to infidelity, which is quite in opposition to the purpose of the Law. This is especially the case when corrupt interpretations are put on the principles of the Law, as some men of our own times do. We have known many people who think they are philosophers and hence claim to find out strange things through philosophy, which are in every way contrary to religion, and they do not admit of any other interpretation. They think they must disclose these things to the common people. But by the disclosure of wrong notions they lead them to eternal destruction […]
In this passage, Averroes argues that the common people might understand enough of what the philosopher says to become suspicious about the imagery and rhetoric of religion, but not enough to arrive on the other side with philosophical understanding. To use Averroes example from the last section, the woman might be convinced that God is not ‘in heaven’ but not be able to grasp that God does not have a body. Instead, she is likely to decide that God simply does not exist. Rather than trying to help the common people improve their rational capacity, Averroes advocates for hiding, as much as possible, philosophical texts and ideas from those who cannot understand them.
In this passage, Averroes argues that the common people might understand enough of what the philosopher says to become suspicious about the imagery and rhetoric of religion, but not enough to arrive on the other side with philosophical understanding. To use Averroes example from the last section, the woman might be convinced that God is not ‘in heaven’ but not be able to grasp that God does not have a body. Instead, she is likely to decide that God simply does not exist. Rather than trying to help the common people improve their rational capacity, Averroes advocates for hiding, as much as possible, philosophical texts and ideas from those who cannot understand them.
Averroes’ division of people into these three classes—the exhortative, dogmatic, and philosophical—based on their natural rational capacities is the most controversial aspect of the Decisive Treatise today. While Averroes does mention that the dogmatic and philosophical people require not only natural capacity but also habituation and training, he is quite clear that it is impossible for most people, regardless of training, to attain the level of knowledge and understanding of the truth afforded to the philosophers.
This is quite different from our contemporary understanding of human cognitive capacity and the role of education. We tend to believe that everyone can learn and understand with the proper amount of educational support. While we might hold that some people are naturally talented in various ways, we rarely hear people make the claim that the majority of human beings are incapable, regardless of educational opportunity, of achieving a high level of understanding of a given subject. In fact, it is often argued that struggle is a normal part of achieving a high level of knowledge, not an indication that one is incapable of knowing. And even those people who believe strongly in ‘natural talent’ don’t advocate lying to people about what we have come to know.What do you think about Averroes’ view that the common people need to be protected from philosophical knowledge?
In these selections from Averroes’ A Decisive Discourse on the Delineation of the Relation Between Religion and Philosophy, we have seen one of the earliest arguments that faith and reason, religion and philosophy, can work together rather than existing in opposition. We have also seen Averroes’ way of accounting for the inevitable situations where what has been demonstrated in philosophy and what has been claimed in theology or scripture seems to contradict. While Averroes’ view of the three classes of people has not been taken up by the larger philosophical community, his argument that the truth as it is understood through philosophy and the truth as it is understood through religion cannot contradict has been extremely influential.
If you would like more information about Averroes and his arguments in this text you can check out the Back to Basics: Averroes on Reason and Religion episode of the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps podcast. For a more expansive overview, the Stanford Encyclopedia’s entry on Ibn Rushd [Averroes] is also helpful.
This work has been adapted from A Decisive Discourse on the Delineation of the Relation Between Religion and Philosophy, a public domain title from the Online Library of Liberty. All images were created using Midjourney.
Phillipson, Traci. 2024. “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth: Averroes’s Decisive Treatise.” The Philosophy Teaching Library. Edited by Robert Weston Siscoe, <https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/truth-cannot-contradict-truth/>.
The Prophet Muhammad is a central figure in Islam. He is viewed as the last of a long line of prophets, which includes Moses and Jesus. He is responsible for writing the Quran, which was dedicated to him by the angel Gabriel. His life and sayings are recounted in the Hadith; he is viewed as an exemplary role model of Islamic life and faith.
Exhortation — The method of understanding and interpreting Truth available to the common people. The majority of people take scripture literally and understand truth and right action based upon this understanding. They are persuaded by the vivid imagery of the Quran and the rhetorical exhortations of religious leaders. Averroes takes this to be lowest form of understanding
Dogmatic Discourse — The method of understanding displayed by those who, through natural ability and habit, are able to have a deeper understanding of the Quran, and of the truths it illuminates. These people know that not all of the scriptures are to be taken literally, and that greater underlying Truths are revealed by interpreting some elements allegorically. Still, they err on the side of dogmatism and literal interpretation whenever uncertainty arises. Averroes associates this way of thinking with Muslim theologians and views this to be the middle level of understanding.
Philosophical Inference – The type of understanding associated with philosophical demonstration or argument. This is the highest level of understanding, accomplished by a select few, who have a natural capacity for philosophy and proper philosophical training.
Law — The Quran (the central religious text of Islam) and, to a lesser extent, the Hadith (reports of what the prophet Muhammad said and did). Averroes is concerned with explaining how philosophy relates to what Muslims take to be the unerring Truth regarding God and the nature of existence, as they are expressed in Scripture.
Occasionalism — a theory claiming that God is the only true cause of changes in the world. For example, when you high-five me, you’re not really the cause of the stinging sensation I experience. God is the cause. Your high five is just the occasion on which God causes it.
Interactionism — a theory claiming that things in the world can truly cause changes in each other. For example, when you high-five me, you truly cause me to experience a stinging sensation in my hand.
Substance Dualism — a theory claiming that the mind (or soul) and body are two distinct and very different things.
Body — what it sounds like! The body is the physical part or aspect of a thing and has characteristics like shape, size, etc.
Soul — that part or aspect of a thing involving mental aspects of their existence, e.g., thoughts, feelings, decisions, etc. The “soul”, in this sense, is more or less just the mind.
Causal Interaction — When one thing acts (i.e., itself does something) and in so acting makes another thing change. For example, when you high-five me, you cause me to experience a stinging sensation in my hand.
God as God – The phrase “God as God” is basically a synonym for “God the subject.” In other words, it refers to God precisely in God’s status as an incomprehensible divine Other.
Incarnation – The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is the notion that the word of God became fully human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is closely associated with the doctrine of the trinity, which asserts that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus as the word made flesh), and God the Holy Spirit are one God.
Religious Fanaticism – In Feuerbach’s use of the term, a religious fanatic is someone who is unwaveringly faithful to God as an utterly mysterious superhuman being. They subordinate other things—especially the love of other humans—to submission before this divine other.
God the Subject – When Feuerbach refers to God as a subject, he is referring to the commonplace religious belief that God is a being who has various attributes, like a loving nature.
Faith Separates Man From God – Faith separates God from man in this sense: it treats God as a mysterious other, a being radically distinct from us.
Faith – Belief in and fidelity to a transcendent divine subject like God.
Orthodoxy – Orthodoxy refers to “right belief,” and it is concern with identifying heresies and ensuring that people believe and practice correctly.
Indirect Form of Self-Knowledge – Feuerbach’s view is that religious belief is a naive way of relating to our human nature and its perfections. It is naive or childlike because it treats these as external realities that belong to God. He believes a mature and contemplative person realizes these don’t belong to God, but rather to our species, abstractly conceived.
Above the Individual Man – The human perfections are “above the individual” insofar as no particular individual ever perfectly realizes them. They are abstractions.
Divine Trinity – Feuerbach is having fun here. He is using the theological phrasing of the Trinity to talk about human perfections. In calling reason, love, and freedom of the will “divine,” he means they are absolutely good; they are activities whose goodness is intrinsic to their practice or exercise. This isn’t a novel philosophical view. For example, Immanuel Kant argued that autonomy or a good will is the only thing which is unconditionally good.
Perfections – The end to which a faculty or power is ordered. For example, omniscience would be the perfection of the intellect. Traditionally, God is said to possess all perfections.
Love – When Feuerbach writes about love, he is referring to unconditional concern for others and the desire for fellowship with them. He is here asserting that love, understood in this sense, is the perfect activity of the affective faculty. In other words, our feelings and passions are fully actualized and engaged in an intrinsically valuable activity when we genuinely love others.
Infinite – The infinite is whatever can be understood as unbounded or unlimited. Human nature in the abstract is unbounded and unlimited. It is only bounded or limited in its concrete form as it is realized by particular material individuals.
Higher Consciousness – The sort of consciousness that mature human beings possess, but which other animals do not. It is “higher” than animal consciousness because it involves thinking abstractly about the form or essence of things.
Science – Feuerbach uses the term science in its classical sense, meaning systematically organized knowledge. Any body of knowledge founded on an understanding of first principles and the essences of things is a science in this sense.
Popular Sovereignty – The view that a government’s authority to rule comes from the people, making a ruler subject to the will of their citizens.
The Divine Right of Kings – The theory that kings are chosen by God and thus that political revolt is a rebellion against the will of God.
Synthesis – The prefix ‘syn-’ means “together,” so a synthesis “brings together” or combines elements of both a thesis and its antithesis.
Antithesis– An antithesis is the contradiction of a thesis. For example, internationalism could be understood as the antithesis of nationalism.
Thesis – In Hegelian terms, a thesis can be understood as a position or theory. Examples include any of the “-isms” that we discuss in science, history, and philosophy, such as Darwinism, capitalism, nationalism, etc.
